Has The Mail lost its political compass?

Over recent years the Daily Mail may have become a reliable thorn in Tony Blair's side but it has consistently had a soft spot for Gordon Brown. Insiders say the Brown-friendliness is very much the policy of the Mail's Editor, Paul Dacre.

Today's Daily Mail leader (not yet online) suggests that Mr Dacre's generosity is set to continue. Here are some key sections of the leading article:

"His sure-footed performance yesterday - unflashy (like the man himself), full of conviction and moving at times - showed up his rivals as the pygmies most of them are..."

"Mr Brown's voice rang with unaffected truth when he said of his mother and church minister father: 'My parents were more than an influence, they were - and still are - my inspiration..."

"There is a decency and integrity about Mr Brown that the Mail admires. If he can bring these qualities to government, that can only be a huge improvement on the Blair era of spin, sleaze and cronyism."

The Mail provides a reminder that Team Cameron should not underestimate Gordon Brown for he clearly does have qualities that appear, in large part, to be an antidote to some of the least popular aspects of Blairism. But The Mail really shouldn't be allowed to get away with today's leader. 'Brown offers Britain a moral compass' is the leader's headline but The Mail appears to have thrown away its political compass in its assessment of Mr Brown. In almost throwaway asides, the Mail leader notes Mr Brown's addiction to spending, the pensions crisis and the deterioration in schools'n'hospitals as if these were small matters in comparison to Mr Brown's "decency and integrity." The Mail says Mr Brown deserves "huge praise" for Britain's economy. He doesn't. His regulations and tax burden (much of it stealthily imposed despite that "decency and integrity") are steadily eroding Britain's competitiveness.

Today's Sun Says isn't as flattering to Brown as The Mail but it falls into some of the same traps. Tony Blair's premiership may be coming to an end but the once-right-wing press is still not yet free from New Labour's spell. Falling for New Labour's spin in 1997 is forgivable but still falling for Labour in 2006 - given its record - is inexcusable.

What we as a party must recognise is that we cannot go on rubbishing the press eg.The Mail,just because it dosen't like the things Dave is saying.If we can't take heed of that fact,then we have got no chance.The press are a barometer of how we should put forward Tory policies and judging by what we see now,it is only the liberal leaning Guardian who seem to be our ally. If that is the case then God help us.

Sadly I have to agree that this site is slowly succumbing to the corrosive effect of what are most probably UKIP supporters. I have tried to keep to the debate on a particular thread. I have also spoken as I find, sometimes supporting the modernisers and at other times saying if I thought they were wrong. At all times though I have been a Conservative supporter and of course the site carries the word "Conservative" in its title. Maybe one way the site could be improved would be if anonymous posters were stopped as a first action and then maybe other rules put into place. I don't want this to be just a cheerleading CCHQ mouthpice BUT equally I don't want it end up as just a negative head banging site for right wing obsessives. What is needed is on topic debate rather than personal attacks.

I agree with you Matt; every now and then I feel like ripping up my membership card if this board was representative of party activists, but it's not, not anymore and while there are dozens of long standing and genuine posters, debate gets disturbed by trollers from all parties and none (including self declared 'ex-Conservatives'; if you are an ex supporter why are you on this site?) which makes it difficult to follow and encourages tempers to flare and insults fly which is unfortunate.

I grew up with it at home. I still read it if I find it on a train or am given it free on a plane. Why would I buy it? It's lowbrow and reactionary. I would rather spend my money on any other British newspaper, except the Mirror and the Daily Star. And I'd much prefer the New York Times. When I read a newspaper I like to be challenged and to read beautifully written journalism. The Mail does not provide this.

"I agree with you Matt; every now and then I feel like ripping up my membership card if this board was representative of party activists"

Maybe you need to meet a few, Afleitch. As I said (and changetowin agrees - that's a first!) they're lowbrow and reactionary, just like the typical Mail reader. However, I've always had an amused affection for them.

Although I am generally regarded as a "right-wing Conservative" I was once nearly lynched by elederly ladies at a Blackpool conference meeting when I dared to suggest that privatisation of utilities might not have been 100% in the public interest.

One of your "representative activists" called me a Communist!

I'm sure (if she's still this side of the grave) she is 100% loyal to Cameron though, just as she has been to every other leader before him.

Monday Clubber I have my membership card in my wallet; if the site ever wanted those details to allow me to post I'd gladly provide it; my full name too. And I'd still continue to post my opinions as I have done.

"(A Google search of this site will reveal the poster I am referring to if it's not you, Monday.)"

Sorry Alex but I have better things to do than trawl the site for the shade of the Duchess of Cleveland. Maybe you'd like to explain in greater detail why you think I am a gender-bender.

Personally I find it very curious that an Australian should keep on talking about "our party" and "we" on the basis of a few months' work at CCO during a backpacking trip or whatever it was you are supposed to have been doing. Have you become an honorary Pom?

So isn't Howard good enough for you? Many of us wish we had him over here.

I remain involved through Conservatives Abroad, Monday. To what extent are you involved in the Party? I'm intrigued about your level of involvement. Which Association?

Certainly part of the reason I find this site intriguing are individuals such as your good self. And I agree that John Howard's a great prime minister, Monday - but I suspect that, judging by your posts, he would probably want to give a few lessons on on-message discipline, unity, electoral professionalism and electoral focus that you mightn't like.

I daresay if you trawl through my posts you'll find numerous references to people and places which would be unknown even to an extremely well-briefed "Labour troll".

If and when all posters are required to disclose their identity I will reveal mine. I have held office at constituency and area level in the past. I'm just a paid-up member now.

What seems to hurt the likes of Malcolm and Alexander is the dawning knowledge that many long-term Tories are totally unenthusiastic about the present state of the party under the stewardship of the Notting Hill Set.

Monday, When I wrote the post I knew that a rule stopping anonymous posts would potentially block some of those who have been arguing on opposite sides to you. However I felt it was part of a package of amendments that should be considered, firstly because in principle I don't like people who hide behind pseudonyms. No-one should be afraid of sensible well argued constructive criticsm as it always help people and organisations improve and excel. However increasingly many threads are just degrading into slanging matches and negativity and for some it appears that is the aim. The people who are likely to be driven away by this behaviour are the ones who prefer sensible debate. Those who oppose Conservatism are more likely to gain from this,

Why dont we put it to the rigours of Cameronian-style democracy and see who wants Monday Clubber banned? ;)

I mean at first it was challenging and rather funny but I believe unless francois_the_frog can do something to prove he is something other than a trouble maker, he is by dint of the volume and uniformly confrontational tone of his posts is only trying to wreck this blog.

Lets have some transparency and move to a new system of registration (at the moment anyone can post under anyname from any made up email address) because as far as I can see anyone from anywhere can come on here and try and spoil things for everyone else with nihilistically critical and negative posts.

Real names with real email addresses that only people with passwords that have been emailed to them (after having been vetted by an administrator or editor) are allowed to post. Those being abusive, threatening or consistently being ignorant of good forum etiquette should have their ISP address blocked by the people who run this site.